Perichoresis Volume 11. Issue 2 (2013): 149-159 DOI 10.2478/perc-2013-0007 RICHARD HOOKER “THE PELAGIAN ”. IS THERE A CASE? NOTES ON THE CHRISTIAN LETTER JOHN K. STAFFORD * University of Manitoba ABSTRACT. Richard Hooker explicitly rejected the charge of Pelagianism. In late 16th century Reformation England, this was no small charge. The extreme sensitivity of the question together with Puritan suspicions of actual or latent Catholic sympathies left Hooker on the defensive. This situation came together in the Christian Letter . Although Hooker’s marginalia is fragmentary, they reveal his con- siderable frustration at the question of his theological integrity. The anonymous author(s) of the Chris- tian Letter attributed their suspicions to the density and ambiguity, as they saw the matter, of Hooker’s writing. For Hooker, this way of writing and thinking was simply what was needed in order to handle the subtleties of Christian theology, especially in times of religious disruption. Theology was not for him, a blunt instrument, but a reasoned and precise scalpel the wielding of which required a commen- surate measure of skill to use properly. However, there were important points of departure between Hooker’s protagonist and his own outlook. The author of the Christian Letter had clearly set out to de- pict Hooker’s writing style as so excessively subtle and dependent on the Schoolmen that contrary mo- tives might well lie behind it. If not Catholic, then Pelagian. KEY WORDS: Richard Hooker, Pelagianism , A Christian Letter , Puritanism In the Lawes and elsewhere Richard Hooker felt compelled to defend himself against the charge that he was a Pelagian. The charge was consistent with the Puri- tan belief that we was soft on Rome and worse, a sympathetic observer. Rome was the whore of Babylon, the Antichrist, the deceiver of souls, where the slightest hint of compassion towards its people was guaranteed to cast doubt on anything else Hooker might say. Thus, his characteristically rational approach to polity and the- ology, his ease among the philosophers and his belief that we err act out our er- rors because we think wrongly, placed him squarely in the Puritan’s sights—if oth- ers could err, so might Hooker. His own reasoning capacity was clearly intimidat- ing to his opponents and they suspected that if there was no smoke, it was surely * JOHN K. STAFFORD (PhD, University of Manitoba) is associate professor in Biblical Studies at Providence University College, within the University of Manitoba. His teaching fields are In- troduction to the Pentateuch, Homiletics, History of Liturgy, and Interpreting Old Testament Narrative. © EMANUEL UNIVERSITY of ORADEA PERICHORESIS 11.2 (2013) 150 JOHN K. STAFFORD because the fire was well hidden. Hooker it was argued was overly subtle and if so there must be dark and perhaps sinister motives at work. Even when Hooker praised Calvin in the Lawes, this was taken by the authors of A Christian Letter to be a slight of hand wherein he was really picking a fight and actually surreptitiously undermining the Calvinist cause through a kind of false friendship. Perhaps damning Calvin through faint praise. Now despite Hooker’s respect for Calvin there is certainly warrant for the view that Hooker was unwilling to depict Calvin as the touchstone for orthodoxy. This is more hinted in the Lawes where the limit of Calvin’s authority is clearly the French church thus inferring as Hooker does elsewhere in claiming the right of England to structure its ecclesiastical life in the ways it might choose. A founder it had, whome for mine own part, I thinke incomparably the wisest man that ever the french Church did enjoy, since the houre it enjoyed him. His bringing up was in the studie of the Civill Lawe. Divine knowledge he gathered, not by hearing or read- ing so much, as by teaching others. For, though thousands were debters to him, as touching knowledge in that kinde; yet he to none but onely to God, the author of that most blessed fountaine, the booke of life, and of that admirable dexteritie of wit, togeth- er with the helpes of other learning which were his guides …1 There is no reason to doubt the genuineness of Hooker’s sentiments but then , he knows very well the sensibilities surrounding one’s heroes—as he says in the Chris- tian Letter, Calvin “is the boile that may not be touched”. 2 Given the Elizabethan context, Hooker’s opponents lost no opportunity to score points. Thus, theological skirmishes were serious and not to be distinguished from their political implications. Again, while A Christian Letter charges Hooker with heterodoxy with respect to justification by faith, the sacraments, the sufficien- cy of the Scriptures, the Thirty-Nine Articles , and so on, the cumulative effect of such charges was to consolidate the P uritan view that he wrote in “cunningly framed sentences to blinde and intangle the simple”3 and engaged in nothing more than sophistry. The issues at stake in English resistance to Rome were con- siderable and so Hooker could also be accused of being unpatriotic. Surely, reason the authors of A Christian Letter, why else would Hooker approach his subject in this way if not through “certaine metaphisicall and crupticall method to bring men into a maze, that they should rather wonder at your learning, then be able to un- 1 Richard Hooker, Lawes , Preface, 2.1: 1.3.13-20, in The Folger Library Edition of the Works of Rich- ard Hooker , ed. by John E. Booty, gen. ed. W. Speed Hill, Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977). 2 Hooker, “A Christian Letter”, in Attack and Response , volume 4 of The Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker , ed. by John E. Booty, gen. ed. W. Speed Hill, Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1982), 67:15. 3 Hooker, “A Christian Letter”, 72:13. PERICHORESIS 11.2 (2013) Richard Hooker “The Pelagian ”. Is There a Case? 151 derstand what you teach in your writinge ”? 4 Therefore, Hooker’s motives must be to obfuscate the integrity of Genevan reform in England, cast doubt upon the greatness of Calvin, and seditiously work against the majesty of the Puritan’s … worthy instrument of … joy, that blessed Halcyon and Christian Deborah , his an- noynted hande-mayde our soveraigne Ladie and Queen Elizabeth , whom the sunne of righteousnes hath raysed upp to still the raging streames and roaring waves of Gods enemies, even the cursed Cananites of Romish Babilon…5 The writers of A Christian Letter , with this final flourish of patriotic emotion declare themselves to be the true Englishmen and God’s friends. Hooker falls under su s- picion that he may not be God’s friend because he fail s the tests, in their view, of Puritan orthodoxy. As in 1588, a mere ten years earlier, England became “just i- fied” as a Protestant land, complete within itself and in favor with God. This was a state of affairs that needed defending in the name of God and Queen, against the crafty and insidious reasoning of Hooker who allegedly masked his true colors under cover of sophistry. Yet, despite this flurry of innuendo, the writer(s) of the Christian Letter name John Whitgift as one their symbols of national orthodoxy. The same archbishop who placed Hooker in the Temple Church and supported Hooker by silencing Travers and who deprived Cartwright of his professorship in 1571. So it may be that the Christian Letter is attempting to drive a wedge between Hooker and Whit- gift by forcing the question of political orthodoxy. But surely Whitgift would have been unmoved by such a blatant and unsophisticated move? What’s going on here? Why the favour shown to Whitgift whose handling of Puritans was firm? As Speed Hill has not ed, Whitgift was “circumspection itself ” when called upon to adjudicate doctrinal disputes but as noted above, this did not prevent him from acting when politically necessary decisions had to be made. Doubtless his ap- pointment of Hooker in the first place involved some well-considered theological acumen. Hooker, of course, understood the rhetorical sleight of hand by which his op- ponents accused him. He is both amused, frustrated, angry and dismayed not least by the anonymity of the accusations. Death by innuendo and a thousand cuts. Referring to the slaying of Caesar by Cassius and Brutus, “Was there any feend he had so ill minded as not to believe such honest protestations? … You have given me as many stabs as my body could receyve at your hands …”6 When we consider the Dublin fragments it is clear that Hooker has been ac- cused of being a Pelagian. He rejects the very idea of such a thing. This is found 4 Hooker, “A Christian Letter”, 72:14ff. 5 Hooker, “A Christian Letter”, 78:24ff. 6 Hooker, “A Christian Letter”, 78:2-6. PERICHORESIS 11.2 (2013) 152 JOHN K. STAFFORD also in the Lawes. Why is Hooker charged with Pelagianism? What do his critics see that leads them to this accusation? Is it because the lines are too closely drawn. Speed Hill draws attention to the charge made against the Lawes that they were seditious and associates this charge with either atheism or popery —those were the options presented! Does this merely reflect the Zeitgeist or do Hooker’s critics have an active case perhaps built around Hooker’s method or the subtlety of his pole m- ic.